Review of Accepted Action language.

[Nick C]

Great discussion! I like The European Poker Tour's Accepted Action.

What I consider to be relevant:

Who makes a wager and doesn't want others to know how much they are betting? Mike, do you? Ken, do you?...I don't either.

Players that "insta-call" or call without requesting a count should be subjected to whatever the exact amount is. The debate only pertains to calling players that request the correct count, and get the wrong information.

Finally; at some point, the exact amount must be determined, correct? Why not get it right before the problems begin?

I really like the European Poker Tour Rules...I think they have it right.

[K-Lo]

For completeness, another point was raised to me supporting a change to AA, although frankly I am not sure that it is really persuasive.  Just to put it out though, it was pointed out that the Dealer is effectively an employee of the house, and that inexperienced players in particular would get upset when they feel they have been "duped" by the dealer.  "if I went to a spin the wheel game in a casino and ask them how much I would lose if I bet $5 and lost, and then they told me after I lost that I owed them $20, I'd tell them to go f@¥£ o££...".  Not sure if this is really the same situation, but i'll just put it out there for the record.

[MikeB]

FWIW:  The European Poker Tour Rules has a somewhat similar provision (although I would not treat dealer counts the same as player counts)... I'm not sure offhand where they got these provisions from if they borrowed them from somewhere, but it's something to consider:

41. Accepted Action - If a player requests a count but receives incorrect information from the Dealer or another player at the table...
The amount of chips is smaller than the stated and accepted wager (i.e. Dealer/Player says 80,000 and the all in is 50,000) the calling player shall only be required to pay the 50,000 in physical chip value.
The amount of chips is larger than the stated and accepted wager (i.e. Dealer/Player says 100,000 and the all in is 150,000) the calling player shall only be required to pay the 100,000 as the agreed upon wager.
[...]

Another good example to be considered in the debate mill. The leakage here is that the rule doesn't say what the calling player will WIN, only what they will lose. At the 2011 Summit we found the inequity that some proposed rules allowed a player to win the entire actual amount but only lose the dealer counted amount... an unacceptable irregularity.    Also of course this language doesn't get around the multi-way problem.

[K-Lo]

Another good example to be considered in the debate mill. The leakage here is that the rule doesn't say what the calling player will WIN, only what they will lose. At the 2011 Summit we found the inequity that some proposed rules allowed a player to win the entire actual amount but only lose the dealer counted amount... an unacceptable irregularity.   

I have been thinking about the point for a while, and I have to admit that I'm not so sure why the amount that the bettor is bound to lose must necessarily be the same amount that the caller is bound to lose.  Is it just because the amounts are different?  I am not sure that fact in itself should make it unacceptable.  I'll have to review the summit arguments again, but the situation faced by each player is different... The all-in player has decided to risk all of his chips by going all-in, if he loses to a bigger stack he expects to be eliminated.  On the other hand the potential caller may be relying on a count of the dealer and expects to lost that amount.  The expectation of both players are met, even if the amounts to be lost are different.

[MikeB]

Another good example to be considered in the debate mill. The leakage here is that the rule doesn't say what the calling player will WIN, only what they will lose. At the 2011 Summit we found the inequity that some proposed rules allowed a player to win the entire actual amount but only lose the dealer counted amount... an unacceptable irregularity.  

I'm not so sure why the amount that the bettor is bound to lose must necessarily be the same amount that the caller is bound to lose.  Is it just because the amounts are different? (1)

The all-in player has decided to risk all of his chips by going all-in, if he loses to a bigger stack he expects to be eliminated. (2)

On the other hand the potential caller may be relying on a count of the dealer and expects to lost that amount.  The expectation of both players are met, even if the amounts to be lost are different. (3)

I'll take the view that poker iis an even-money gamble:

1: It's b/c poker is a game of even-money bets, unlike craps / roulette, etc. where you can win more or less than you bet, depending on the odds of the specific bet you make (i.e. the payoff on a craps bet on 6 is much different than the payoff on a bet on 4). In poker if I bet you 25, and you call we both expect to win or lose 25 (x the total number of calling players). This also keeps the evolution of the pot odds during the hand consistent with even money on all bets.  If under this one situation I can win 25 but only lose 20, then the pot odds of the bet are fundamentally changed.

2: But he expects to lose all of his chips if he loses, but win an equal amount if he wins. Again, if he can lose 100% but only win 80% he's not making an even-money bet.

3: If poker is a game of even-money bets, which I think it is, then the expectation should always be I can win the same amount as I can lose... and the amount should be the same for both players. Otherwise it's not an even-money bet between the players involved.

The 2011 Summit was very interesting on this, there were proposals which would have resulted in the possibility of uneven bets... no conclusion was reached on this b/c accepted action was adopted instead, and accepted action by it's nature is even-money everytime.  The discussion will continue...

[Nick C]

K-Lo,

IMO, If the all-in player does not win the pot, and their bet is covered by a calling player, they can not play another hand.

All-in is everything. If the amount of the all-in is quoted as 100 (by the dealer or player) and it turns out to be 120 the all-in can only win 100. IMO, the calling player can only win 100, also. The only question we need to answer is what happens to the extra 20 from the all-in if he loses? Chips removed from play seems the most logical. I believe this would work for multi-way pots as well.

I think I'm agreeing with the last line of the prior post  "The expectation of both players are met, even if the amounts to be lost are different."

Mike,
I'm assuming your even money analogy is for head to head only.

[K-Lo]

I'll take the view that poker iis an even-money gamble:

2: But he expects to lose all of his chips if he loses, but win an equal amount if he wins. Again, if he can lose 100% but only win 80% he's not making an even-money bet.

3: If poker is a game of even-money bets, which I think it is, then the expectation should always be I can win the same amount as I can lose... and the amount should be the same for both players. Otherwise it's not an even-money bet between the players involved.

Mike:

I don't disagree with any of this, but i feel these assumptions about the game make the most sense when the game is fair to both players.  The specific situation at issue casts some doubt on the fairness of the game, and whether those assumptions should hold.  Aren't we essentially balancing "the expectation should always be I can win the same amount as I can lose" with "the expectation that a player should be able to rely on the honest count of the dealer"? If the latter is considered to be of greater importance, then I don't see anything wrong with "breaking" the even-money expectation. 

Note that it is simple enough to bring the situation back to an even-money gamble if the caller is about to rely on an incorrect dealer count... The bettor just has to step in and correct the count.  The chips are his, he is permitted to handle his own chips, and the dealer is likely counting the chips in front of him. He is in the best position to correct it.  I personally feel that everyone at the table should have a role in ensuring that a dealer's count is correct, but I can sympathize with the contrary position that questions whether the bettor should have an obligation to become involved once he goes all-in.

Ok, I think we have probably beat this horse to death.      

[Brian Vickers]

Our casino utlizes a combination of the "accepted action" and the "gross misunderstanding" rules.  Our rule is that if a caller is given the wrong count by the dealer and loses, he is only responsible for up to 50% of the difference.  

i.e. If a player is all-in for 12000 but the dealer states he has 10000 he will still pay off 12000 because it falls within the 50% difference rule.  If a player goes all in for 18000 but the dealer states 10000 the player will only have to pay off 15000 if he loses.  If he wins he may win the entire stack.  

This rule only applies if given an "exact count" and it turns out to be wrong.  Any statement such as "around 10,000" or any amount stated by the player that the dealer does not confirm do not apply here and the correct all-in amount would be the correct all-in amount.

Another exception is in a case such as a player saying "All-in for 2000" where the exact count ends up being grossly higher (such as if the amount was actually 10,000) but the other player says call quickly.  If the dealer corrects the inaccuracy before another player has acted or before cards are revealed, a player may be given an opportunity to take back his call completely.  I'm not at work or I'd look up the exact wording on this rule.

Edit:  I'm not saying the rule is "perfect", as I know that no rule could be perfect in this situation, but I'm just sharing our rule here.

[MikeB]

Brian, your rule is 100% compliant with TDA 41: a) You have accepted action in place for most situations AND b) you have a Rule 1 exception for egregious cases ("gross misunderstandings") at house discretion.  

What you've done is to put your specific exception language in writing and define exactly under what conditions you will have an exception and what the exception will be. This is exactly what some other venues represented at the 2011 Summit do. Those venues voted to adopt 41 after the Rule 1 discretion language was added b/c they recognized that their specific exception language was now compliant with the general Rule 1 exception.

I really think that this is where the most fruitful discussion at the next Summit will be focused: is there any specific exception language that can be commonly agreed on? ... rather than trying to reject the premise of accepted action itself. Even if no changes are made it will be useful to hear of the kinds of exception language that specific venues are using.

BTW Brian, how does your exception rule work in practice? Have you had any major problems w/ it or do you find it reasonably functional?

[Nick C]

ACCEPTED  ACTION
Poker is a game that requires  mutual participation. The responsibility for accuracy on amounts wagered; is shared by the bettor, and ultimately the caller. Therefore,  any player that calls a bet,  without a requested confirmation from the dealer,  will be held to the full amount wagered.  In the event of incorrect information the floor will intervene  to decide the liability to the losing player.

You didn't think I was going to stop on this one, did you?

[MikeB]

As one twist on this topic: How should a chip(s) NOT pushed forward in an all-in be treated... should this be included in language? Player A declares all-in and pushes out 100k, leaving a 5 k chip behind. Player B calls. We know the all-in bettor (Player A) can't be saved by the chip if he loses... Must Player B pay this chip off if he loses? Will he win it if he wins or should the chip be taken out of play?

Also: Does a silent chip-push gesture that looks like an all-in (without verbally declaring all in) constitute an all-in if a straggling chip remains behind?... or in the absence of a verbal declare all-in is the bet amount only the chips pushed (with the straggling chip available to the player for a future hand even if he loses)?

[K-Lo]

Re: chips moved forward - I was thinking more about the situation where a player announces all-in, dealer does not announce all-in and does not put out an all-in button, but the player has only left in the amount to call, for example... subsequent player announces "call" thinking he is calling the amount in front when in fact it is much more to call the all-in.  If there is no retraction or option to top-up allowed or fold, then strict AA proponents would force a call here despite the caller not being able to see the chips being put all-in.

[MikeB]

Another accepted action thread, if not already linked to new suggestions: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=808.msg7205#msg7205

[MikeB]

Re: chips moved forward - I was thinking more about the situation where a player A announces all-in, dealer does not announce all-in and does not put out an all-in button, but the player has only left in the amount to call, for example... subsequent player B announces "call" thinking he is calling the amount in front when in fact it is much more to call the all-in.  If there is no retraction or option to top-up allowed or fold, then strict AA proponents would force a call here despite the caller not being able to see the chips being put all-in.

That's an interesting situation also. IMO in that situation there's a real question whether or not Player B had a legitimate reason not to be aware of the nature of the bet in the first place. Rule 41 says it's the caller's responsibility to be aware of the correct AMOUNT of the bet, but in this example there's an even more fundamental question about the NATURE of the bet (did Player A call, raise an amount or go all-in?) and whether that was sufficiently conveyed to Player B that by continuous alert observation he would be expected to be aware of it or not.

I don't think Rule 41 absolves Player A of making his intentions clear.

All of this is good material for AA discussion at the Summit.

[K-Lo]

I don't think Rule 41 absolves Player A of making his intentions clear.

Amen. 

There's a whole series of related situations that we have been discussing... what if the dealer did announce all-in but the player didn't hear it?  What if the caller was wearing headphones or not playing complete attention?  etc.  But in all cases, no chips were pushed forward...  I know for a fact that some very strict prominent TDs would say there is no longer an option to top-up or fold given AA - I'd like to see that only applied if like you said, A made his intention clear by placing chips in front and that the wager is consistent with any verbal declaration.  Otherwise, we should still be open to providing the option.